A. J. Tatem and colleagues reply
We appreciate the interest generated by this light-hearted piece.
We were, of course, careful to caveat predictions with “if current trends continue”. But if we were to follow all the advice we have received, we would be both correct and incorrect to fit a linear model. If we were incorrect, we should instead have fitted a two-part spline, a lowess curve, not a lowess curve, a rational function of polynomials, a quadratic model (predicting times regressing back to 1900 levels by 2100), a cubic model and an exponential curve. We should have both removed and added points, and were both correct and incorrect in our use of confidence intervals!
Will the gender gap continue shrinking? We look forward to finding out.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mind the gap: women racers are falling behind. Nature 432, 147 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/432147e
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/432147e